True, but that's irrelevant. Competition isn't limited to the exact same products.
A Ford and a BMW are essentially the same thing, and do compete. WalMart likewise computes with retailers that sell different brands and models.
On the contrary -- other companies are still free to do what WalMart did, or beat WalMart with a better business model.
There is no monopoly. Far from it.
So what's your point. That by being cheap ford has a lock on all car sales? Ford competes with BMW for car sales. There is competition for the consumer dollar, otherwise there would just be one car brand, one light bulb brand, etc.
But isn't that a choice the consumer makes? They choose one stop shopping over the community. I'm not saying it a good choice (I tend to support the local guy myself). I support the local food places rather than the big chains; but that's just me and my choice. Others choose differently.
So now walmart is a monopoly? Don't think so. Further, I think the laws were more to protect consumers; more than small/mid sized companies. And in the cases where monopolies were required (power company, old phone company, old airlines, etc) they were regulated.
Don
I never said it was. You just don't get the point. We are talking about 2 different things here: products and retail outlets. I'm saying that not all retail outlets carry the same products. You can argue that one can buy GE light bulbs at Ace Hardware and Sylvania light bulbs at WalMart. These products aren't exactly the same, but they're close enough. Comparing a Ford to a Lexus - they're miles apart. As far as that goes, you could get an 5-ton truck. I will take you from point A to point B as will an automobile.
When chos> So now walmart is a monopoly? Don't think so.
No, Walmart is not a monopoly - yet. I can envision that scenerio in the future if things don't change.
My bad, should have guessed 13.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Nonsense -- all of it.
(Modified JN contentless blowoff.)
Is it possible that Pat Robertson's Heritage Foundation has an axe to grind in support of GOP/Conservative Corparate policies? Not saying they do, just asking do you think it might be possible?
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Pat Robertson has been associated with The Religious Heritage Freedom Foundation and Christian Heritage Center, but those are different from The Heritage Foundation, which got its initial boot from Joseph Coors, and is still associated with the Coors family -- "Holly" Coors is currently on the Board of Trustees. The Heritage Foundation is a highly respected conservative "think tank", and has actually been harshly critical of Pat Robertson. You may not agree with its agenda, but it's research is solid.
In your opinion.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
And that of many others, even those with different points of view. Can you cite any experts that have raised serious questions over the quality of the research?
The Heritage Foundation is respected by the far right, but not by anyone else.
In your opinion.
That would be hard to do- most of the experts ignore their research.
They aren't a research institution or even a think-tank, they simply formulate political policies to further the far right-wing agenda.
Read "
I consider myself to be conservative. They make me look like Jimmy Carter.
Yeah, gotta love any outfid that believes in -- elimination of special educational funding for the handicapped (because it drained funding from "normal students")
No wonder JN's in love with them. -- if someone can't keep up, let 'em die on the road.
You can't really equate all conservatives with the views of the Heritage Foundation. Most conservatives believe in fiscal conservatism, something that the Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have not been in favor of ever since Ronald Reagan's disastrous Reaganomics.
The Heritage Foundation is a mouthpiece for big business. They don't represent conservatives any more than Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition represents liberals.
I don't -- just the ones who appeal to HF's right-wing-biased position papers as evidence provided by "respected researchers" in discussions on ba.internet.
His recent positions regarding those crushed and left jobless by Walmart's depredations is exactly in line with the views supported by that organization.
It's a lot easier to "do well" when you exploit workers than if you don't.
You read it first, kids- John Navas tells you not to bother acquiring skills. Of course, John has waltzed through life without any skills- he'd have to be about 120 years old to have even minimal skills in all of the things he's boasted about being an expert on in the last few years.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required